In Book 1 of the Republic, Socrates, in answer to the question What is Justice? is presented with a real and dangerous alternative to what he thinks to be the truth about Justice. Julia Annas believes Thrasymachus thinks Justice and Injustice do have a real existence that is independent of human institutions; and that Thrasymachus makes a decided commitment to Injustice. She calls this view Immoralism: the immoralist holds that there is an important question about justice, to be answered by showing that injustice is better. This essay identifies this Immoral view before understanding if and how Plato can respond to it. How does Plato attempt to refute Thrasymachuss argument? Is he successful?Initially Thrasymachus states that Justice is nothing else but the interest of the stronger. Cross and Woozley identify four possible interpretations; the Naturalistic definition, Nihilistic view, Incidental comment, and the more useful Essential analysis. The Essential Analysis: An action is just if and only if it serves the interest of the stronger, with Thrasymachus stating the disadvantages of Justice and advantages of Injustice. This leads to problems with the stronger man, is it merely the promotion of self-interests? If Justice favours the interests of the stronger, is this simply from the perception of the weak with morality not concerning the stronger? Cross re-formulates Thrasymachuss view as Justice is the promotion of the strongers interest, therefore both weak and strong can act justly in furthering the strongers interests. However, complication occurs when we understand that Justice is anothers good: You are not aware that justice or right is really what is good for someone else. This entails Justice supports the interests of the strong from the weak, but additionally the interest of the subjects from the ruler. Confusion lies in Thrasymachuss argument; can Plato adequately respond to Thrasymachus?Inconsistency cree...
